Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  April 15, 2019 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT

5:00 pm
if your -- [inaudible] >> so at 1.2 million, you're estimating, and these are estimates that you'd hit 8.2 million with the 270 and 1.5 million for the mayor's race, your cost estimate is 9.7 and 50,000. so any way, i just want to make sure that there wasn't some magic about those two particular numbers, that there could be a number in between those. >> yeah. i think that it has to do with a matchable amount because
5:01 pm
we're in a 6:1 ratio. there's a 1:1 at the very end, so we wanted to avoid some kind of weird tiered system where we get 6:1, but at the end, we either don't give or it's a 1:1 match. so we wanted to make the numbers look neat that way, so that's why we chose those two. >> okay. >> chair chiu: could you run it just at 150 to see what that would look like and understanding that would have an impact on the matching, like, 6:1, and how weird will it be? >> yeah, sure. absolutely. >> chair chiu: yeah. so i'd like to invite mr. wright up. >> thank you to the ethics commission. thank you, chair chiu. thank you to the ethics staff. i wanted to offer a comment on the ethics staff report that we're reviewing today, particularly in regards to the
5:02 pm
set of proposals that supervisor gordon mar is working onto move forward at the board of supervisors. first, i would say thank you to the staff for putting together this report. on the whole, we agree with both the overall analysis and most of the conclusions that were reached in the report for the listed recommendations. there are a couple points of difference that i just wanted to specifically address here. so first, we agree with the fifth recommendation of increasing the initial i.e.c. to 350,000 for supervisorial races and 1.7 million for mayoral races, but we feel it's important that we increase the maximum funds that a candidate can receive, because unless we do that, we're in effect
5:03 pm
diluting the public funds that an overall campaign could raise. we did request a b.l.a. analysis of our proposals that i will have ready to share with the commission probably next week. we ended up somewhere in the middle? so rather than 200,000 for supervisor, 275 for supervisor, we ended up recommending 255,000 and ends up matching the amount for i.e.c. to work alongside the $100,000 increase to the initial i.e.c. we did agree with the increased amount for alternative one for mayoral races because that matches the amount that the i.e.c. is being raised by, so we'd agree with that. the other thing i'd highlight is we had a different conclusion on the amount of a contribution that should be
5:04 pm
matched. we agree with the goal of decreasing the overall amount from 500, however, we reached the conclusion that a $200 level would be more effective to the goals of the program because it does move us towards further sort of incentivizing or empowering small-dollar donors without having the effect of reducing an individual's maximum contribution. so if we're matching a $500, we're only matching the first 100 at a 6:1 rate. if it was matched up to $200 at a 6:1 rate, under our recommendations, it would stay at $1500 while still empowering small-dollar donors, so that is
5:05 pm
one point that we reached. we agree with the decreasing amount, we just think it's important to think about how that -- k >> chair chiu: edward, i want to make sure i understand. at the $200 amount, how do you get to 1200 or are you talking about the $500? >> yeah. if you look at the maximum contribution of $500, in the current program, that's worth $1500 and matching $200 at a current 6:1 rate. >> chair chiu: right. but my math, you're watching 500 at 6:1, so that's 1700.
5:06 pm
so it would be an increase of 40%. >> yeah. >> chair chiu: i'm sorry. it's, like, from 1500 to 1700, and that's going the opposition direction from what we're trying to do here, so a $500 donation is -- is getting doubled and will -- it has an impact of $1500, but under the 6:1, it has an impact of $1700, so that's even more -- the current impact of $500 at this point. so how does that help the smaller donors? >> because at the look at the percentage impact of a smaller contribution, the percentage increase of the impact is going to be greater for the smaller contributions than it would be for the maximum contribution. >> chair chiu: yeah, on a percentage basis. from an absolute dollar basis,
5:07 pm
you're getting $200 more from $500 as opposed to the current regime of 2:1. >> correct. so i think we're open to looking at other numbers, as well, that would try to keep it the same. our motivation is we didn't want to reduce the impact of a maximum individual contribution in changes made to the program which under the set of proposals for matching up to $400 at a 6:1 rate, it's actually decreasing by $400 the amount of funds you had a receive. >> chair chiu: yeah. commissioner lee? okay. i think if you look at the chart on page six, the number of people, 70% of the mayor's
5:08 pm
contributions were in the 4 to $500. it is. of t -- if you're going to get to 200, it's 12%. so the -- i think we need to strike a balance between the -- a disproportionate reduction to the impact of a $500 contribution but also empowering the impact of a $100 contribution because of the gross disparity, you know, i think that we see in this chart. >> yeah. i think we absolutely agree with that. our concern is just again, not wanting to reduce the impact of a maximum contribution but rather lift up the impact of smaller contributions. >> chair chiu: right, but the dollars have to come from
5:09 pm
somewhere. >> right. >> chair chiu: if one goes up, the other goes down. >> director hs van van thank yo-- >> commissioner lee: thank you, madam chair. if 4% of my donors are writing checks, i'm going to spend more time cultivating the $500 donors. >> under the current program, yeah. >> commissioner lee: so the whole idea of bringing in the folks who are being left behind is that they have equal footing, so to speak. so that's why i'm still having questions on, you know, the $500 versus the 100 or $200 or 150. because if the idea is to bring along the folks who have been left out, what you're saying is
5:10 pm
the candidates are still going to spend more time cultivating the big donors because under your scenario, they're going to bring in more bucks than the small donors. >> well, the difference between the scenario we are considering versus the recommendation of the staff proposal is not the difference between 100 and 500, it's the difference between 100 and 200. in the donors that could donate 200 up to 500, to provide a counter weight to the max donors. >> chair chiu: commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: the only thing i wants to say, this
5:11 pm
chart that we're referring to, which is on page 4 of the staff report, it's your chart number one and chart number two, i'm not sure i'm reading it -- i don't think that the 5% and the 10% of, say, 15% of donations that are under $200, that that's the number of contributors, it's the value. and so the dollar amount affects those percentages. and i was curious, if you do have numbers of contributors that fall into each bracket, i'm assuming that the number of people who give money under 100 bucks is a hell of a lot more than people who give 4 to $500. >> yeah. and i think in crafting our models, it was difficult to get data from the contributors between 0 to $100.
5:12 pm
it's not required to itemize those contributions, so i think getting the people who donated between $5 and $15. tyler could speak more to that if you have questions, but i think we put this chart here deliberately because we couldn't generate the numbers for that substance set of data between zero and 100. >> commissioner ambrose: and i understand under the current program, if you're able to generate a $500, that's worth 1500 under the current campaign. under the new numbers, you're suggesting that those contributions of that amount which are around 70% of campaign finances come from that size donation, the value of the money, that's the one thing that chart does show,
5:13 pm
that that isn't reduced because that could have the result of net reducing the amount of money that's available to candidates who are receiving public financing because they're -- i understand. i'm not sure if you can get there with the changes, with the $200 cap, though. so -- >> yeah. so our hope is that the impact of these reforms, of increasing the matching ratio and decreasing the amount of the contribution that's matched, is that this chart would look very different, in that a much larger share of any campaign funds would come from folks who were donating in smaller contribution amounts. so we, again, agree with the conclusion that we need to reduce the amount of the contribution that's being matched along with increasing the matching ratio. i think it's about finding what is the right balance there, what is the right number?
5:14 pm
and in terms of thinking through the impacts on a campaign, i think a good place to start on these reforms is doing it in such a way that we're not decreasing the actual impact of the actual contributions but looking at how we can further lift up smaller dollar donors. just another thing, i do think there's a meaningful difference between someone who's able to donate $110 versus someone who's able to did he nate 500. and also want to match as a ratio, the full $110 donation makes a difference just matching up to 100. so that was part of our thinking of just where do you draw that line? who do you consider a smaller-dollar donor? and where we ended up was $200. we thought that was a viable and impactful way to approach it, which was a different number than where the ethics staff ended up, but i think we
5:15 pm
both agree on the same goals. >> chair chiu: so i would like staff to look at $150, a match of 2:1 at 150 nets you 800, and that at 6:1, that's worth $900, and gets you to 1400. so it's not 1500, but it's not disproportionately valuing the $500 contribution at the expense of the $100 contribution because the $100 contribution in the 6:1 matching ratio if you're matching 200, it's still worth more, but the $500 contribution is worth even more than what it was in the current scenario, which is counter to some of the goals that the commission thinks is important or at least i think is important. so i'd like to ask staff to come back with a difference
5:16 pm
proposal at 150, and 23 -- if could share your findings with b.l.a. >> yeah. let me just stress again our view that the staff proposals were correct in the initial amount that they propose increasing the current i.e. krechlt krech krechlt -- amounts. >> chair chiu: you were proposing 255 for the board of supervisors and 1.5 for the mayor?
5:17 pm
>> i believe it was 1.7. >> chair chiu: 1.7? >> yeah. no, excuse me. you're correct. 1.5 for mayor and 255 for supervisor. >> chair chiu: how much? >> so it's 1.2 for the maximum public funds available for mayor and 255 for the maximum funds available for supervisor. >> chair chiu: and then, from a process, i wanted to make sure i understood your remarks at the beginning of your comments, and that was, is supervisor mar going to be druzing his own ordinance on the -- introducing his own topics on these at the board? >> yeah. so we've been waiting to receive the final draft b.l.a.
5:18 pm
analysis. we had previously drafted legislation that was looking at both the phase one recommendations that the commission's sort of considered and the phase two recommendations. we held off on that and were happy to comment as a sponsor on the phase two ordinance that is now moving forward at the board. so our intention was after we received both the staff recommendations and the b.l.a. analysis to then redraft that legislation to be kind of in line with the conclusions. >> chair chiu: so how do you envision the process working with the ethics commission here? because all that we have here is the ground, the basis for a proposed ordinance that we would have to review and then discuss and vote on and could go to the board of supervisors or we could go to the ballot from a legislative standpoint. but if your supervisor's introducing a separate
5:19 pm
stand-alone measure, how do we rectify the two, and how do you envision going forward? >> so any proposal at the board of supervisors would go to the ethics committee before the board voted on it. it's essentially is it introduced as a departmental ordinance or is it introduced tl through our office? >> chair chiu: so you are or are not contemplating having two -- you draft an ordinance and then the ethics commission drafts an ordinance because that seems to me to be a very inefficient way to do things. >> our intent is to work with the department. we don't want to have competing legislation. >> chair chiu: i just wanted to clarify that point because it doesn't seem to make any sense for us to be working in parallel. typically, as i understand, i
5:20 pm
would ask the deputy city attorney to weigh-in on the process. from my time on the commission, as a commission, we'd ask to have public comment, we'd comment on it, and then send it over to the board of supervisors to take it up. and if there are any changes, any changes would have to come back to the commission because it has to be approved by a super majority on both sides. so since we are kind of engaged in that process here now with the current draft proposal of content from the staff, my hope and expectation would be that at the next meeting, we would consider an actual ordinance and that one from and when we have super majority approval, we could send that over to the board of supervisors for its review process. and i don't know if there's anything you want to add to
5:21 pm
that. >> yeah, no, i think that's absolutely a great point. our intent in drafting and updating the legislation is twofold. one, to match up the portions we have already introduced, to take up the portions that we have introduced to this commission and to reflect the analysis that was presented? and second to share with the commission and ethics staff our thinking on this topic. but if the intention of the commission is to move forward with an ordinance at the next commission meeting in may, i agree that it probably wouldn't make sense for us to introduce a separate legislative proposal at the board given that both would come before the commission and then the board. >> chair chiu: right. yeah. i mean, that to, me, would make the most sense because we are on track to consider an ordinance based on, you know, staff work for next month, but the idea would be to incorporate feedback and, you
5:22 pm
know, answer some of the questions that commissioners raised but that we would come back to consider an ordinance, hopefully, we could do that at the next month's meeting. andrew? >> yeah. so just to clarify, we have a variety of outcomes here. we're not excluding any potential outcomes, but in terms of what the commission wants to see at the next meeting, it's clear that the commission wants to see an actual legal text. now is your preference that the proposal will be from staff or from supervisor mar's office or that you would have a singed ordinance that reflects input from both parties? >> chair chiu: i would prefer a single ordinance from both parties, and if it needs color coding, and say this is the staff proposal, or if it's cleaner to have color comments from staff and have it come
5:23 pm
from supervisor mar's office, i think brian, you collaborate here with mr. wright here -- i don't want to tell the painters how to paint. >> yeah, i think that's something we can work towards, putting that proposal together for the next meeting. >> chair chiu: any other comments from fellow commissioners, concerns about that approach? so just to recap, then, for the following meeting, and that we raised a lot of different points here, in that i would like to move foy a draft ordinance. i leave that up to deputy city attorney, policy staff, and mr. wright to determine how best to frame that. i think past practice has been there's a staff ordinance, and then if there's changes or difference of opinions from supervisor's staff, that they could then attach that so we could see who is wanting and taking what position on which provision i think would be very
5:24 pm
helpful. >> okay. great. any further questions for me? >> chair chiu: any further questions for mr. wright? >> okay. thank you very much for your >> discussion of proposed regulation in the staff attachment. >> thank you, chair chiu. item five is an item that pat ford, again, was -- worked on in preparation for this meeting. i just wanted to highlight for you what the item is. our hope is that you may have a chance to look at them today, receive public comment. these are draft proposed regulations that cannot be acted on today. our regulations, you may recall, require a ten-day notice, so the plan was to have the list of areas identified
5:25 pm
for you where we are proposing some regulatory cleanup and some changes to elicit any kind of specific comments, questions, from you, from members of the public, and then to revise as necessary, notice those changes, and then have them available for you at your may meeting for your action if you want to take action at that time. the package that's with agenda item five basically separates these three -- these proposed changes into three categories. first, they are implementing regulations for the anticorruption and accountability ordinance. these are the regulations that would be created or amend current law to help implement the law that took effect -- or that was enacted in 2018. so table 2-a on page two lists the specific sections that would be changed, that these
5:26 pm
are new provisions or regulations or updated regulations, and then, it describes the purpose. the secondary is general clarifying and interpreting regulations to just clarify and interpret various divisions of the code. again, the number of the regulation is listed and the purpose. and then, there are also some nonsubstantive updates that a number of them were holdovers from prior changes to the code that we have not kept our regulations pace -- in pace with, and so these are cleanup changes that really need to happen, to just conform the regulations that exist with the current code. i am reminded that our -- now that we have both policy members on board and have expanded our band width generally, this is something that will be top of mind going forward regularly as changes to the law are enacted so that we don't have regulations that are out of sync with the code sections. so with that, i just wanted to
5:27 pm
highlight for the policy team that these are in front of you today. happy to answer any questions if i can, but also to encourage any specific discussion or questions that we can respond to at the next meeting with specific regulations to address those questions if they haven't been addressed here. >> chair chiu: i just have a couple questions. one is with regard to the education and communication component of rolling out these new requirements, and, so, for example, there's some notification requirements that agencies now have, and so i imagine that there's been a whole plan put together, but if you could speak to that at next month's meeting just to give some highlights, i think that would be really helpful because there are certain burdens that have been placed upon the community to make these findings, and i just want to make sure that it's not going
5:28 pm
to be gotcha situation because nobody told me. >> yes. and now that we have two new members, that is definitely something that has now moved to the top of the list. we are working with, for example, the board of supervisors, clerk of the board of supervisors office to implement procedures for disclosure requirements to sync -- requirements throughout the city, so we have staff who are developing those outreach and information plans to work closely with departments. >> chair chiu: thank you. >> and we can certainly provide more information about that at next month's meeting, more specifically. >> chair chiu: this goes to the behested payments. i think it would apply generally to these regulations, and that is what is the penalty if any for a failure to file or
5:29 pm
a delayed filing. so i know that there are late filing fees, and i think that there are in some circumstances, penalties for failing to file. but in particular with regard to these behests payment reports, these are payments made by either an elected official -- report made by either an elected official or individual made at the behest of an elected official. my concern is if no behest is made, there will be no summary on that payment. so if there is a large contribution, charitiable contribution made to the mayor's charity at the behest of the mayor, and the ordinance requires reporting, but if it's not reported, there's really no way unless a form 803 is filed at the state level and we're cross checking. i'd like to understand what the
5:30 pm
mechanism would be to ensure that there could consequences of -- there could be consequences of failing to file. [please stand by] to file these forms. one thing that in echoing your prior comments about engagement, one think that is unique when
5:31 pm
the payments as they apply to people who make donations and people who receive the donations. since we are talking about the payments some recipients may be nonprofit organizations. this may be a new construct for them. >> it will be important the regulated community is made aware of and understands what their obligations would be. that is all i had. questions? commissioner lee. >> commissioner lee: call for clarifications for 1.10 1.104-3. it included more than just the spousal partner or deepen debt
5:32 pm
children. i thought we included parents and siblings. if not, i would like to propose we add the siblings in parents in the definition of immediate family. >> which section is that? >> commissioner lee: page 2. just the definition. it was not included in any of the attachment. the attachment page 2. >> it is agenda item 5, page 7, at the very top. definition of immediate family. >> it doesn't show a change. >> that is the existing one. i thought we had a discussion to add other family members into
5:33 pm
the definition. >> yeah, i am not sure why it was not included. staff is not proposing changing. it is standard for campaign financing purposes. >> i thought we had a discussion to add siblings and parents. >> we can look to see. if it is not consistent and should it be and what the implications would be. we will be happy to address that next month. >> siblings, my siblings are 60-year-old being that don't share my political interest. i wouldn't consider them part of my immediate family. >> i think after the campaign finance fiasco and currently
5:34 pm
going on, siblings are sort of being used or included in some of the payments and some of the other campaigns. definitely the parents are included. right now more and more people are looking into siblings because of the business, small business operations. that is why for campaign finance reform purposes under family definition, siblings are included. i would like us to explore that. >> we can do research on what the differences are and what is purpose is. >> i had one last question in regulation 1.1-sixt-6 that is oe
5:35 pm
7 agenda item 5. the current public financing ordinance at the rules committee, if that is passed by the board, then i think this would since we eliminated the trust accounts that this provision would then go away. is that right? >> i think this is an update to com port with the current law. yes, presumably we would have to update these if they change again. >> thank you. any other comments. i would like to calm for public comment on agenda item number 5.
5:36 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners, anita. i would like to summarize my written comments written april 10 regarding the proposed regulations. the committee making independent expenditures to disclose the city and name of the officer who requested the contribution. the definition should be clarified to indicate it is a committee to oppose the measure. it should refer to a committee that has made at least $1,000 over the 12 month period. under the proposed regulation the contribto must make disclosure when it is made. this is an unreasonable burden
5:37 pm
on a donor that is not aware it is required. under state law the contribution totaling $5,000 or more must send a written notice to the donor within two weeks or week of contributions of 10 grand or more during the late reporting period. this could be used to inform donors of the requirement to disclose the name of the city elected officer. the proposed regulation requires the receiving committee to require the filing of the same form of the donor. such filings creates an unnecessary burden for the receiving committee a single filing by the initial $10,000. $5,000 should suffice to inform the public. unlike the provision requiring disclosure of bundle
5:38 pm
contributions, this section does not require a listing of the contributions, merely the name of the city elected officers who requested the contributions be made. under the proposed reg the term election cycle appears to mean the time the committee is registered with the secretary of state to support or oppose the measure. if that is correct it would be helpful to clarify additional donations of 10 grand or more to the same committee would not trigger the repeated filing of the same information about that business entity by the receiving committee. definition of election cycle is confusing and needs clarification. two quick points. the proposed regulation clarifies definition of affiliate, a new term added with respect to contractors doing business with the city.
5:39 pm
under the previous ordinance it applied to a committee sponsored or controlled by the party to the contract. that was deleted when the ordinance was adopted. the corresponding language should be deleted. because of that the notice language in the proposed regulation that refers to a committee sponsored or controlled by the party should be deleted. >> do you have copies o of your comments that you could provide? >> i e-mailed them on wednesday the tenth. they didn't get duplicated. yes, we will deliver them. >> i thought you could e-mail the comments to all of us, that would be terrific. mr. cox is asking you to reach
5:40 pm
out to ms. mayo to discuss the possible feedback. any other public comment? agenda item 6. discussion of monthly staff policy report. >> this is the regular monthly report highlighting some of the initiatives the policy team has underway. many items we have discussed today already. happy to answer any questions if you have them. >> just to what you said earlier the pending ordinance is hopefully to be taken up next week, we hope, by the rules committee. >> as soon as we get word of that, we will have notice to you to keep you informed. >> then on page 3, trustee
5:41 pm
election disclosures implementation, is there a timeline on the implementation of the new public disclosure requirements? >> yes that is something that is on my agenda report. that is underway with the compliance team as we speak. >> thank you. public comment or questions from commissioners? public comment on agenda item 6? moving to item 7. discussion of monthly staff enforcement report including an update on various programming and operational highlights of the enhancement program's activities since the last monthly meeting. >> over the course of the last month we have hosted two significant trainings. you asked last month about
5:42 pm
staffing decisions within the enforcement division. we noted we had elevated investigator jeff zumwalt to the position of senior investigator so jeff provided to enforcement provision a training of three hours based on his work of more than a decade in law enforcement as a police officer and at the end of his career in law enforcement as a police detective. that was how to prepare for interviews, the goals of the interview, the forms of conduct that the interviewer might look for in terms how to make decisions how to proceed with the interview. generally to encourage the team to develop ways of treating
5:43 pm
interviews as opportunities to get witnesses and respondents to provide relevant information to treat the interview as a conversation designed to elicit information. that was valuable to the people as was his experience be. the other training the enforcement division hosted included members of other divisions within theth ethics commission. that was provided by the fair political practices commission. the counterparts at the state level in sacramento until we had the assistant chief council present to staff about the substantive legal issues governing conflicts of interest. there is two provisions of state law section 87.100 and then
5:44 pm
section 10.90. we incorporate those in art chemthrecle --artcle three. it is all of which apply locally for staff to advise the regulated communitity about obligations respecting financial conflicts of interest and for the enforcement division to investigate alleges of conflict of interest violations so there was a second part of training that included the supervising special investigator who spoke exclusively with the enforcement division about best practices how to identify when conflict violations have occurred. then turning to the enforcement statistics. you will seat for the first time
5:45 pm
in a while the division has opened more investigations than we do have complaints. we now have 75 complaints for which the ethics commission has not yet made a determination as to jurisdiction or the merits of the allegations, has not rendered a decision as to whether to dismissory fer. we have 80 matters. some have just been opened by referral to the district attorney. others are in the final statements of resolution with active efforts to settle the matters through a negotiated stipulation with respondepartments. you can see the amount of time it takes the enforcement division is hovering around seven months. we aspire to bring that number down and fully intend to.
5:46 pm
particularly given opportunities to reform processes which the division will spearhead shortly. you will see in light of the divisions ability to resolve the older matters on the docket we man aimed to bring the amount of time down below 15 months. i am happy to field any questions you might have. >> it would be helpful for me and my fellow commissioners if we could -- i don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask this. to explore ways the commission can them in terms of reducing the backlog or number of cases over a year. looking at the type and the fixed penalty schedule,
5:47 pm
exploring ways to bring them to resolution, having a dialogue might be very helpful. >> if the commission wants to engage in expanding existing policies, we operate currently under the six penalty policy which enables streamlined handling of a small amount of cases before it. if they wish to expand the numbers and if they wish to convey to prioritize violations over others, what would be the legal obligations in terms of engaging the public? >> i would seek recommendations from staff to say from the enforcement team what things would be helpful in your work to
5:48 pm
bring these investigations on the review of matters? how do you become more effective? what role can the commission play in facilitating that process? >> how we would go about having the discussion? >> yes, in public. >> yes we can approach it in an open session item. the confidential items are triggered with a single complaint. we can have large big picture discussions. >> the number of complaints 13 to 15 months or relate to sunshine and could we have he standpoint on the ones because we can't boil the ocean. there is limited time and resources to these investigations. how do we prioritize those
5:49 pm
resources for the most input. are there ways to pass iltate smaller matters through the six penalty? >> i appreciate the commission's willingness to engage in a process that might expand the six felty process. it might communicate about the matters the enforcement commission might prioritize. if i have not said before. it is to treat all complaints roughly equally in the order in which they arrive. we have an obligation to take serious lie all complaints before us and a way of
5:50 pm
reassuring the public is to complaints first in and out and move through the document with all due diligent. if the division believes the it forcement up the public through an alternative approach to handling the complaints before us, we are able to handle that. >> any public comment on this? aan agenda item 8. executive director's report. >> i have updates. this morning deputy director and i attended the budget
5:51 pm
subcommittee meting of the meeting on information technology huish shoe option --h who had issued proposals. based on the recommendation and action today they did not fund the request that we submitted to make a disclosure meaningful. for our data sharing and analysis for an informed public. it appears that this is a year in the subcommittee's view that there are a number of very large projects that require technology fixes in the city and a number of large departments that have to work together to create new systems at risk of disrupting city services. this is a year with a great number of asks, and they did not prioritize our ask as one that fit into this year's bucket. that is obviously very
5:52 pm
concerning to us because it is a critical process that if we do not have funding to achieve the work that project envisions, a number of very critical public disclosure initiatives we have been working on will come to a halt. precisely at the time when we are moving to a mayoral election. that is a disservice to those who rely on the information with a fabulous day with dashboards and the work the city is doing to create accessible information. the full committee will meet next week to finalize the recommendations. based on what we heard it was not our sense there was going to be much latitude for that committee to make a different recommendation than the one the subcommittee made today. that said, however, we are following the meeting we went and met directly with the mayor's office. the budget analyst walked
5:53 pm
through what happened to try to understand what other options there might be. i would say that we are not at the end of the discussion yet. we are having direct conversations with the mayoral team but the budget and policy team. i think there is understanding of the significance of this project. we are not by any means at the end of the conversation. i wanted to inform you about that development earlier today. that is not what we hoped to hear. we will work as aggressively as we can to make sure we are able to get the funds to keep this project up above on deck and completed in the coming year. it is critical to a number of operations and external public disclosure responsibilities. that ithat is the only update oe budget. we are continuing to still understand and to talk with the mayor's office and respond to
5:54 pm
questions about information that helps them understand our operations and budget asks. >> that is very disappointing to hear that news. please let us know if there is anything we can do to help in those efforts to secure the funding. i don't know if this is possible. is it possible to take this portion of this is and incorporate that into the regular budget? >> we are exploring that option. unfortunately we are looking to see what bucket it can come out of. that might be general fund. we had very helpful and constructive discussion this morning. again, i think we will be very interested to report back to you as we get closer to more decisions over the next several weeks and will have an update at
5:55 pm
the may meeting. if there is information to provide to you before then, we will do that. >> how much was the request? >> it was three year limited term project to accomplish the project over three years. it would have been $225,000 per fiscal year for each of the three years. >> separately on the engagement and compliance front, we have a number of activities ongoing, which is a very busy month as you can imagine. the annual statement of economic interest filings that have been due under state law earlier this month, just a week or so ago, and we have the latest figures this morning show we had 92% of the electronic filers filing on time and about 85% filing their
5:56 pm
sunshine certifications. we are in the process. the staff is in the process of going through the list to make sure there are no duplications and misinformation or filing errors, but we are reaching out already to those who did not appear to file to make sure they are aware of the obligations they have. particularly for members of boards and commissions the no file no vote requirement we have been in touch to make sure they are aware of that. we will continue to keep you informed about that work as it continues, but it was a very busy filing season. we appreciated engagement and compliance team effort to understand the requirements they have. >> for those 8% who have not filed and if they hold a board
5:57 pm
or a appointed position, if they haven't filed they can't vote. they have been notified? >> yes our communications reminded them of that. if the need continues we will increase the conversations with those individuals to make sure they are not stepping into violations of that law. we will do much more outreach across the board as needed. >> i mentioned earlier john is here. he has taken on the role with gus to and taking a look at filings and new system enhancements. i will leave it to john if there is anything to add or specific questions about the program. it is just terrific to see staff and increased bandwidth we are able to pick up programs we
5:58 pm
haven't as active on because of triage in engagement activities. any highlights at all? i will also mention you had mentioned earlier about the trustee elections, and johnny has been actively working with candidates for trustee elections. these are boards with new disclosure requirements in the city with elections coming up. he is providing assistance to them. we hope that is helpful to feltings subject to the requirements. in may first in nay we are in tract to get tools to those individuals. >> i think that is a highlight.
5:59 pm
i am happy to answer any questions. >> any public comment? >> no public comment. agenda item 9. discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission. possible closed session. any closed session motion? >> do we need public comment on this item? we do. public comment on agenda item 9. agenda item 10. discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. public comment? no public comment. agenda item 11. additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appears on the
6:00 pm
agenda pursuant to ethics commission by laws article 7 section 2. motion to adjourn? okay. we are adjourned. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the april 15, 2019 meeting. seated to my right is rules committee vice chair shamann walton, and to my left is gordon mar. substituting at clerk is